I have a second blog, Writopia which focuses on Dan Brown's pattern of falsehoods and embellishment of his personal achievements.

Friday, December 23, 2005

Random House & Sony: Artful Dodgers

So, if Dan Brown REALLY didn't plagiarise me; if he REALLY did the research he claims; then what's the BIG DEAL about going under oath to deny that directly?

And why have they tortured the legal process and failed to rebut so many of my key points?

The issue is important because THEY sued ME and need to prove their allegations. By failing to submit a response UNDER OATH they have left most of my key assertions UNCHALLENGED. In other words, without a response under oath, THEY ADMIT that I am correct.

"Plaintiffs did not submit an affidavit of Dan Brown. While Plaintiffs’ attorneys tried to act as Brown’s surrogate by arguing what Brown did and did not do when he wrote Code, Brown never swore under oath that he conducted any research when he wrote Code, what books, if any, he read, that he never read Daughter or Legacy, and that he did not copy portions of Daughter or Legacy. Even after Perdue submitted his declaration (A. 206-225) stating that his discussion of the divine feminine was the product of his own personal synthesis, some of which he invented, and some of which he arranged by using matters in the public domain in an original way, Brown did not respond under oath.

"Even after Perdue presented examples in his memorandum of law of the similarities in the expression between Daughter and Code (A. 337-342, 345, 350-356), and even after Perdue accused Brown of having copied that expression, Brown still did not respond under oath. Indeed, neither Brown, nor anyone else acting on his behalf, ever denied the charges made by Perdue in his Declaration. Because of flaws in the way in which Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment and because of their failure to adequately deny Perdue’s charges of plagiarism, there existed questions of material fact requiring the denial of summary judgment."